~ Exploring the Age of Consequences

Monthly Archives: November 2012

On Thanksgiving day, among the many things I felt grateful for was a selfish one: the temperature outside nearly hit sixty degrees.

I love a warm day, the product of a childhood spent in the desert environs of Phoenix, where warm winter days were the norm. I have fond memories of hikes and horseback rides on sunny December holidays, meandering among cacti and creosote bushes. I’d also head out the back door of our house, determined to play outside under the desert sun. Warm days became part of my world view. In my twenties, I focused on something I called the ‘Perfect Temperature’ – the sweet spot during a day when life felt ripe and anything seemed possible. Roughly 72 degrees, the sweet spot was a combination of measurement and anticipation. During the summer, it often happened before dawn, and if I was driving to work I rolled down the window letting the sweetness fill the car. During the winter, the days often climbed to the Perfect Temperature and stayed there, it seemed. Happily, I basked in Phoenix’s balmy winters.

I just never expected to do so in Santa Fe. At 7000 feet, a sixty degree day this late in the season is not particularly normal. Neither is the long stretch of dry weather we’ve enjoyed all fall, a stretch that weather forecasters say may extend all the way to summer. This isn’t good news, of course, but it’s hard to complain about it. We will eventually, of course, if it keeps up as predicted.

So far in 2012, we’ve received less than half of our annual precipitation – which is a paltry 12 inches to begin with – and the land looks it. When I go for a walk with our dog through a patch of pinon country near our home, I try not to look at the desiccated grass plants along the trail. We did get a decent amount of rain in August, which caused a bright green flush of life in September. Weeds shot out of the ground like Roman rockets, and wildflowers bloomed almost as far as the eye could see. And thanks to the warm weather, the show went on and on. But now the plants seem confused. “Where’s the snow?” they seem to ask. “Should we think about budding?” ask the trees. “Don’t!” I say in response. “Don’t be fooled!”

It’ll snow some day this winter, as I remind my hopeful son, who loves the season. The trees know this too, of course, and won’t bud until spring – but then what? If the dry weather persists, what will they do for water? I saw a report recently that said in prolonged periods of hot and dry conditions, trees die quickly. Many species can’t handle heat stress very well, partly due to shallow root systems, and mortality can happen fast across wide landscapes if precipitation remains scant. And obviously, tress can’t simply pick up move to a new home. In Texas, an estimated 300 million trees have died since dry times set up in 2011. That’s approximately 10% of the total amount of trees in the state, according to researchers. That’s a lot of good carbon going to waste.

I like a warm day, but a ponderosa pine may feel differently.

Here’s a picture of trees in Texas:

You may notice that I haven’t used the “d” word yet – drought. That’s because it’s important to choose our words carefully. Words have power. No one says that the Sahara suffers from “drought” conditions, for example. It’s a desert, and deserts don’t have droughts. Normal in a desert is a tiny amount of precipitation, usually something like 3-4 inches or so. ‘Not normal’ in a desert means more precipitation – whatever the opposite of a drought is – which generally is good news for plants, animals, and humans.

When we use the word “drought” to describe Texas or New Mexico, however, we imply that current conditions are not normal and that they’ll return to average once again, be it in a year or two or three (which is still bad news for trees). Consider the catastrophic Dust Bowl – the subject of a documentary on PBS this week – which devastated the southern Great Plains with the nation’s worst drought ever. Sure, the great Plow Up of the Plains by reckless humans in the 1920s set the stage for the tragedy, but it was the cessation of precipitation that set the tragedy in motion. Eventually, the rains returned, doing far more to heal the land and its people than any government program. And the rains stuck around, more or less, up to the current period. The Dust Bowl was a drought. What’s happening today is something else.

Long-term climate models for the Southwest indicate increased temperatures and decreasing moisture. Of this, there is now little doubt among scientists. So, when do we begin to revaluate the word “drought” in our everyday language?

A recent letter to John Fleck, the Science editor of the Albuquerque Journal, illuminates this issue well. The letter-writer asked: “When does a drought become the new norm; that is, it’s no longer a ‘deficiency’ and so no longer a drought?”

“It’s a good question,” Fleck responded, “with no easy answer, because it gets to the heart of what we mean by “drought”…a slippery, ill-defined term that sometimes conceals as much as it reveals. If long-term aridity becomes the norm in New Mexico as a result of a changing climate, will we stop calling it “drought” and just cope?”

Fleck notes that the current “drought” is comparable to the big drought of the 1950s, which was eventually followed by a period of abundant rain and snow, lasting all the way through the 1980s. Although many New Mexicans can’t recall the dry times of the 1950s, the implication is that sooner or later droughts break and wet times return – as they have done repeatedly in the past.

But this time things are different.

“Rainy spells and dry spells come and go,” writes Fleck. “But that natural variability is now superimposed on a long-term warming trend, the result of a planet warmed by rising greenhouse gases. So while New Mexico has been slightly wetter the past two years, compared with 1955-56, according to the National Climatic Data Center, it also has been substantially warmer — 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit on average.”

And according to University of Arizona researcher Dave Breshears, who tracks drought’s effect on forests, “it’s going to keep getting warmer.”

So, are we in a drought or not?

It depends, says Fleck. Scientists have different ways to measure and categorize dry periods of time, including the widely-used Palmer Drought Severity Index, which looks at both temperature and precipitation. According to the Index, New Mexico is in a serious drought situation. So, according to this metric, the answer would be ‘Yes, we are in a bad drought.’ But other metrics draw different conclusions, Fleck says. For example, the global increase in temperature underway means that the ‘bar’ for drought is being raised. If ‘normal’ is changing, then definitions of ‘not normal’ need to change as well, including a definition of drought.

One new line of analysis by researchers, says Fleck, focuses on impacts instead of levels of precipitation. What’s happening to the Colorado River, for instance, on which so many people and industries depend? Well, the impact has been severe. How about the impact of the dry weather on ranchers, farmers, and dairies? Ditto.

Clearly, we’re in some sort of transition, reflected by the shifting definitions of drought and the consequences of a drying climate. Unfortunately, this transition isn’t getting much air time in front of the public. So far, the media is sticking to the standard definitions, which sends the message that the ‘old’ normal is still in operation. Hang on, they tell readers and viewers, things will get better. They always have!

This is unfortunate because if there’s a ‘new’ normal emerging, as it appears to be doing, then we should get busy making plans to adjust and adapt. Still, I love a warm day and while we sort out definitions and plans for the future, I’m going to enjoy our dog walks through pinon country, pondering the dryness of it all.

I don’t know, but as the quadrennial national convulsion called the presidential election abates and the dust begins to clear three things are coming into focus. First, Americans didn’t buy what the Republican Party was selling. Although many bought it – it was a close election after all – the majority rejected it, and they did so despite the unprecedented assault on them by Big Money and their plutocratic allies. A funny thing happened on the way to the election – the Majority prevailed. Democracy ruled. The Republic stood. By one estimate, the Return on Investment for the largest Republican Super PAC in the nation was 1%. Ouch. Voters didn’t support the Republican plan at nearly every level nationally, with the exception of the House. Even hot-button social issues on the ballot were resolved largely on the centrist side of the political spectrum.

Of course, when the dust fully clears we’ll still have the Status Quo politically, including a divided government in Washington (at a cost of six billion dollars!). That probably means more gridlock – but we’ll see. It depends on how President Obama leads and how Republicans respond. Hopefully, the message of the election got through, however, and we’ll get progress on pressing problems, instead of more finger-pointing and grandstanding. One can hope.

Second, the election had an undisputed winner: math. The statisticians nailed the forecast, much to the annoyance of pundits on the right. I followed math whiz Nate Silver’s blog 538.org right up to election day, as many others did. I was curious to see if his prognostications were accurate. All summer and fall he had predicted an easy Obama victory, based on his aggregation of data from poll after poll after poll. I was also intrigued by the pushback he was getting from the political cognoscenti, who relentlessly attacked him for being “biased,” which a curious charge to level at a math geek. Well, he nailed all 50 states and Obama’s margin of victory, creating in the process a paradigm-shifting triumph of data over opinion. It might even be the end of punditry as we know it, which would be a bonus.

This is important because Nate Silver’s triumph sends a clear message: facts matter. The statisticians nailed the election. Weather forecasters nailed the path of Hurricane Sandy. NASA scientists nailed the picture-perfect landing of the rover on Mars last August. Math geeks and scientists, in other words, know what they’re doing. Science today is extraordinarily sophisticated and not just in an academic way. It has real world effect, as Silver demonstrated so brilliantly. And if they’re nailing elections, they’re probably nailing other things as well – such as climate change, no? I was amused to read a Tweet from David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, the day after the election in which he wrote: “Horrible possibility: if the geeks are right about Ohio, might they also be right about climate?”

What are the chances?

Third, very clearly the ‘face’ of America is changing. The traditional white voter is in decline and the nontraditional minority voter is on the rise, as polls showed. The lion’s share of the minority vote went to Obama too. This puts the Republican Party in the horse-and-buggy camp. Their response so far has been to search for a new driver, rather than change their mode of transport, which means they didn’t get the message. But the Democrats aren’t in much better shape. The repudiation of the Republican agenda isn’t same thing as a ringing endorsement of the Democratic agenda. And what would that agenda be, by the way? During the campaign, Obama carefully obscured his plans for a second term, so we don’t really know what’s on the menu – other than a lot more Business-as-Usual. Will he add new items? My fingers are crossed.

At any rate, we have four more years – only. The typical political cycle (i.e. voter frustration at the ruling party) means we’ll likely elect a Republican to the presidency in 2016, possibly Rep. Paul Ryan, which is a spooky prospect. I’m nervous for the Republic already. It might not matter, however. By then it could be too late. Pressing problems simply can’t be punted down the road any longer. According to the science geeks, four years is all we have to make substantial progress on the climate front, for example. By the time of the next political convulsion, a Tipping Point will likely have been crossed climatologically. Doubt my word? Don’t take it from me, take it from the geeks.

It’s election day, and I’ve finally made up my mind. I’m voting for the Republic.

The credit goes to Cicero. Over the weekend, Gen and I watched the next installment of the HBO series Rome in which the Republic was thrown into turmoil following the assassination of the tyrant Julius Caesar by a group of Senatorial conspirators, led by Marcus Brutus. A power struggle ensued, with the fate of the 500-year old Roman Republic hanging in the balance. Maneuvering behind the scenes was the great orator Marcus Cicero, who believed passionately in the Republic and worked strenuously on its behalf. This meant a struggle against Caesar’s youthful heir, the scheming, ambitious Octavian, and the powerful Marc Antony, Cesar’s right-hand general, both of whom had dictatorial desires of their own.

It’s great drama (well played by HBO) and an important history lesson. Cicero tried valiantly to keep the Republic intact, only to see his plans shattered on the battlefield when Brutus’ army was destroyed by Octavian and Antony. The victorious generals returned to Rome and seized power. Knowing that the Republic’s days were numbered, Cicero quietly retired to his country villa, where he awaited his inevitable murder by the dictators (who had his hands cut off and nailed to a door in the Forum). Eventually, of course, Octavian defeats Antony (and Cleopatra) in battle, changes his name to Augustus, and becomes Emperor, polishing off the Republic for good.

I rooted hard for Cicero, even though I knew how the story ended. I cheered him on because I believe that our own Republic is under assault from dictatorial forces, though without the swords and togas. I don’t know how our story ends, of course, but I am fretful about current events, many of which point in dark directions.

Take the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling back in 2010, which unleashed a catastrophic flood of money from corporations and billionaires into our political system with consequences that cannot be good for our democracy in the long run. The round-the-clock carpet bombing of negative political ads on TV, for example, has certainly bred huge amounts of disgust, apathy and cynicism among the electorate. I’m equally certain the flood has had other pernicious effects as well. Money corrupts, and huge amounts of money corrupts hugely. It’s corrupted our democracy – just as unbridled wealth corrupted the Roman Republic, according to Cicero, among others.

Then there are the plutocractic elements at work in our nation. Cicero would have been shocked at how much power, wealth, and influence is concentrated today in the hands of a few individuals and corporations. I’m shocked. It didn’t used to be this way and I’m not sure how it happened, but somewhere along the line Americans lost control of their future, and large parts of their nation. Now they’re in danger of losing the presidency as well. The plutocrats supporting Mitt Romney’s run, as well as their work down the ticket in every state, barely conceal their motives: to concentrate wealth and power even more. The audaciousness of these elements is deeply worrisome.

Most galling, however, was the shocking and chilling attempt by anti-democratic forces to disenfranchise voters from actually voting, mostly by making it difficult to cast a ballot. In state after state across the nation, obstacles of all sorts were put in the way of poor people, minorities, and the elderly to discourage them from voting, such as requiring a photo ID card or restricting early voting hours. The stories I read were extremely disturbing. In a democracy, every effort should be made to encourage participation in an election, not actively discourage people. I don’t remember this sort of behavior when I was young, so why is it happening now?

There are other worrisome signs, which I won’t go into here. It all adds up to this: I fear for our Republic.

That’s why I’ll vote for Obama today. I’m not a fan, as I’ve explained, of either him or the Democratic Party, but I’ve decided that a vote for the President is a vote for the Republic. He’s certainly no Cicero, but he is a decent person as well as someone who will continue to govern democratically, even if it means Business-as Usual for the next four years. A victory by Obama means, at the very least, that the Republic will stand until 2016 (I hope so anyway). A vote for anyone else would encourage the anti-democratic forces in the country. As it is, we may only be buying four more years for the Republic. But I can’t think about that right now.